Ultimadrago
Member
Okay, people's warped opinions on the DKC series are making me want to pull my hair out.
This has GOT to be a conspiracy! You'll never break me, heathens!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Raise the flame shield: Your "controversial" gaming opinion.
- Thread starter Laughing Banana
- Start date
Okay, people's warped opinions on the DKC series are making me want to pull my hair out.
This has GOT to be a conspiracy! You'll never break me, heathens!
How is that clear? Reviews have been positive with scores ranging from 8s-10s. And Gravity Rush looks all kinds of awesome. Definitely something compelling.
Every launch lineup is padded with ports but Sony deserves major props for getting 2048 and Super Stardust out on launch day. I don't think Escape Plan looks like a boring attempt at all either.
MK7 was good for all of 10 minutes, still haven't bothered to complete it.
Nice Yoona pic BTW.
IrishNinja
Member
^shame, cause i think this is the best one since SNES, personally.
jeremy1456
Junior Member
In my opinion, Sony's 1st party developers are highly overrated. They're a couple notches below even Microsoft's.
lol, at least Sony publishes a good amount of games for their first party. The only games Microsoft put out last year were Forza, Fable III on the PC, and a crapload of shoddy Kinect games...
PS Vita launching in February was the dumbest decision ever. I mean it's not like launching in February made PS Vita's launch lineup that much better than it would have been if launched before the holidays. Giving Nintendo the entire holidays to themselves for the 3DS was a poor decision on Sony's part.
Launching in March was bad for the PSP.
Launch in March was bad for the 3DS.
So what makes Sony think launching Vita in Feb is smart? People have the most disposable income during the holidays. Not the end of winter/beginning of spring.
Most people will not throw down $250 on Vita, $40 on a game, and $30 on a memory card, in Feb. Only the hardcorest of hardcore gamers will do that.
Launching in March was bad for the PSP.
Launch in March was bad for the 3DS.
So what makes Sony think launching Vita in Feb is smart? People have the most disposable income during the holidays. Not the end of winter/beginning of spring.
Most people will not throw down $250 on Vita, $40 on a game, and $30 on a memory card, in Feb. Only the hardcorest of hardcore gamers will do that.
Vita is launching a week from Tuesday, and supposedly the reason was because they would only have a few titles ready before Christmas instead of the lengthy amount you see now.
Just clearing up the confusion.
And since the Vita only costs Sony about $157 to make according to sources, you may very well see a price drop in the coming months if sales are not up to par, most likely as an announcement at E3.
Just clearing up the confusion.
And since the Vita only costs Sony about $157 to make according to sources, you may very well see a price drop in the coming months if sales are not up to par, most likely as an announcement at E3.
Vita is launching in February, and supposedly the reason was because they would only have a few titles ready before Christmas instead of the lengthy amount you see now.
Just clearing up the confusion.
Yeah sorry about that, I forgot it was coming out this month lol.
Dion Blaster
Member
Super Mario Bros. 2 is quirky and fun, and has a better soundtrack than 1 or 3. Miyamoto still produced this game, and it shows.
That's not controversial, it's just not provable.
You might as well say Natsume's developers can push the Xbox 360 better than anyone.
secretanchitman
Member
dont get me wrong, its still dkc at heart, but it has something missing that the other games have, i honestly cant explain it. i have played through dkc2 so ive experienced it from start to finish, but i really had to force myself to do it. with the others, i loved every second of it and wanted to see what happens next.
I believe that FFVII and Chrono Cross are compared poorly to their Nintendo predecessors FF VI and Trigger by mostly Nintendo supporters who hate the fact those sequels made the switch to Sony consoles. In a gist, it's Nintendo supporters who hate on those two games so much on the forums.
As someone who loves all 4 games, that is my controversial belief.
As someone who loves all 4 games, that is my controversial belief.
jeremy1456
Junior Member
Well as someone who loves FFVII, but realizes Chrono Cross is pretty 'meh' I disagree.
Had Chrono Cross been named something else I would still think the same. The only difference would be that no one would have played it.
IrishNinja
Member
man, that is weird as hell. you dont think any of it was more 2D > 3D?
i think trigger > cross, and FF VI > VII all day, and obviously neither of those opinions are controversial here. but xenogears, legend of mana, and a lot've other square stuff on PSX was better than some of their beloved SNES work too.
i used to say this too, but honestly, idve played fucking anything square put out back then. Einhander and shit i couldnt always pronounce, just so good.
i think trigger > cross, and FF VI > VII all day, and obviously neither of those opinions are controversial here. but xenogears, legend of mana, and a lot've other square stuff on PSX was better than some of their beloved SNES work too.
i used to say this too, but honestly, idve played fucking anything square put out back then. Einhander and shit i couldnt always pronounce, just so good.
jeremy1456
Junior Member
Well you know, I'm really not sure exactly how Cross could come to be so highly regarded. It doesn't have a particularly good battle system, and though less important, the story is stupid even by JRPG standards.
Can a game really be so highly regarded because of a soundtrack? I guess so.
Heh, I tend to agree, at least in the case of VII. As a neutral party who was there on the front lines in '97, I can attest to the ridiculousness of the Nintendo fanboyism. And they're easy enough to pick out even today because their arguments against the game have grown so stale.
TaroYamada
Member
I grew up a Nintendo fanboy, but in retrospect I think FF 7 > FF 6. FF7 is one of the best JRPGs ever, though the graphics absolutely blow now. Never played Cross, so no idea there but from my experience yes, FF 6 > FF 7 people are by and large Nintendo fans/fanboys.
One could say some great things about Phantom Dust, at least. It's just one game, and I doubt many of the devs are still around, but I'm not sure I can think of a first party Sony game that beats it.
Yeah just ignore Gears 3 and Halo, I'm not a fan of Microsoft's first party output for the most part, but Sony's first party games aren't any better than the best MS published games, and a lot of the time Sony's line-up feels very quantity>quality to me.
I'm not sure whether I disagree strongly... or ALMOST agree. Maybe this depends on generation and time period, Phantom Dust was a ton of fun and on par with Shadow of the Colossus easily, my favorite of Sony's internally developed games, and games like Lost Odyssey and Alan Wake were pretty solid. However, as they are now I'd give Sony the nod by virtue of producing stuff beyond Kinect, shooters, Fable, and Forza.
Of course Sony's line-up is more varied, but that's pretty much by virtue of having a bigger line-up, I mean pretty much every year this gen had people proclaiming it as the year of the PS3 at the start because of the size of the line-up, rather than the actual quality. For example, I very much like Uncharted 3 and InFamous 2, but then there was also Killzone 3, Resistance 3, Motorstorm Apocalypse etc. etc. But how many of the games Sony release are truly great? Even UC 3 had a backlash of sorts. All I'm saying is Sony has a lot of filler games and a better line-up only on paper most of the time, when in the end both Microsoft's and Nintendo's best efforts usually surpass the best of Sony.
I'm only talking about the current gen, btw.
Black Lawn Finale
Banned
You could argue Nintendo's line-up possibly going toe to toe with Sony this generation but with Microsoft that's a flat out no.
Well you typed a lot for saying nothing.
Every big game has backlash on GAF. You need to cast your own religious beliefs aside when discussing whole lineups. I might not like Motorstorm and Infamous, but they are well rated, well received AAA productions that weigh in for Sonys favour, not matter what angle you come from.
I might be tired, but I just cannot follow your logic here.
AcceptableGhost
Member
Yeah but whose honestly going to argue that Forza 4, and Fable III are the pinnacles of quality (I think Halo is kind of poor too but I guess I am in the minority on that)? Microsoft's lineup doesn't feel anymore "quality over quantity" it is just they don't put out anything anymore. They are going to put out 1 maybe 2 games and market the hell out of them (regardless of quality) and they are going to sell well due to the marketing alone (just look at the Kinect).
CosmicGroinPull
Member
MGS4 wasn't speciIal. Even MGS2 was. There just wasnt anything great about it, although it had the best controls of the series.
Yada yada, Kinect sold because it was marketed well and because it is a unique product.
That's harsh. They're worse than a company that puts 1 or 2 actual games out a year and lets third parties buff their system up?
Basically, where MS have made in my opinion two or three great games this generation, and Sony haven't, Sony have made like twenty good games, and MS haven't, and overall, I think that's made for a better line up. It's peaks aren't as frequent, but it's consistency is much better.
There wasn't a Halo game last year, and I didn't realize we were including exclusive third party games that Microsoft wishes were first party. lmao. When a publisher is releasing only a couple first party games in the first place, it seems pretty arbitrary to point the finger and say another company is only worried about quantity. Was Forza 4 or Fable III on the PC really so amazing? To me, Forza 4 was just a slightly upgraded Forza 3 and not much else - not so amazing to warrant that sort of stance.
All subjective. I think Sony have made plenty of great games and Microsoft a share of good games. What "great" games have Microsoft created that Sony didn't at least match with in terms of first party content? (mind you, not being predatory here, just curious)
I feel that Forza and Halo both reign over GT and KZ/Resistance.
But Uncharted shits on Gears of War :b
I think Halo 3 and Reach are both great, as was Mass Effect, I think UC2 is the only great game Sony has published this generation.
Although to be fair, that's discounting PSN/XBLA, in which case I think Flower is of exceptional quality, it's also discounting HD Remasters, and I believe that's fair.
It's hardly an opinion that MS published Mass Effect, and the quality of it's sequel is completely irrelevant as far as I can tell. If Gears counts, Mass Effect counts.
Henry Jones Jr
Member
Metal Gear Solid 2 is hands down the best of the series. It's not even close.
Erm....??
I actually said I don't believe Gears of War or any third party exclusives actually count here. He said first party, which GoW and ME are not.
It's not going to make people who haven't already or were intending to buy a 3DS because they're both long-standing Nintendo properties.
Oh, and missed this:
For an Xbox game, it was pretty good, but had its fair share of problem. And plus, that was obviously last generation, not this one. I would love a Phantom Dust sequel but that's besides the point.
So they just got Halo, Forza and uhhh Fable? :lol
They are published by a first party. Even Epic call Gears first party.
Second party is some bullshit term people use online that doesn't have any legal counterpoint. There are only first party, and third party games. Things published by a console owner are first party.
Halo Reach wasn't by a first party studio either. In fact, nor is Journey, or InFamous, or Resistance, or a ton of all three platform holders games.
personally I would not count games on another platform, PC in this case. I mean I guess if you were just comparing the two systems it's one thing but it's clear this is a personal opinion thing so since I have a PC that pretty much leaves the recent Halos, Gears 2/3, Fable 2 (gears 1 and fable 3 are on PC) and the 100 Forza's they pumped out this gen.
And I would take Resistance 3 over any current gen Halo game for single player. 3, ODST and Reach all had extremely sub par and forgettable campaigns and none of the awesome guns that Insomniac can make. Multiplayer is up to other people, I couldn't care less about multi.
Gears 2 was pretty great though, I liked it better than UC2. Not as much as UC3 though.
When was this anything other than that? As far as I can see, it's just games published by Microsoft Game Studios versus Sony Computer Entertainment on their current consoles.
I do have Mass Effect on PC though, and it is indeed, far better.
Halo is a Microsoft-owned property. Gears of War is an Epic Games-owned property. Why else would the CEO of Epic say he'd love the trilogy on the PS3: http://www.1up.com/news/gears-of-war-ps3-epic-love
Sony actually bought Naughty Dog and Sucker Punch, so yes, inFamous is a first-party property, and by contract, Journey is a Sony property (as was Flower, another contractually-owned game made by the same company). And you completely contradicted yourself in your post by saying that "things published by a console owner are first party" then list games that are published by Sony and then proceed to call them not first party. lol
I meant if we were just comparing consoles objectively and not just opinion, and I don't feel like games that I can play on a superior format should count as an exclusive. Exclusive means 1 platform.
But if we were ignoring PC for some reason and just comparing the two consoles then I guess it counts. But I don't know why we'd ignore PC. It's as viable a gaming platform as any of the others.
No, I didn't. I said those aren't from first party studios, SP is owned by Sony today, they weren't when InFamous was released.
Because it was comparing the two first parties. Yes, you could compare the whole platforms, but that wasn't what was being discussed.
But seeing as Sony now bought Sucker Punch, and before that all their games were made by contract through Sony exclusively, why exclude it when none of their games will ever appear on any other platforms? We're talking semantics here, especially when you're playing double standards here by saying there are only first party and third party games, and technically inFamous was very much a first party property if you're looking at it that way.